Yates v. Miway, LLC et al

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING 21 PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FROM GENERAL ORDER 56.(lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
CRAIG YATES,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

No. C 11-01273 LB
Plaintiff,

v.
13

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
RELIEF FROM GENERAL ORDER 56

MIWAY LLC, et al.,
14
15

[ECF No. 21]
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

16

On March 16, 2011, Plaintiff Craig Yates filed a complaint alleging that Defendants Miway,

17

LLC; You See Sushi; and Ikuko Miura failed to provide Americans with Disabilities Act compliant

18

facilities at the restaurant You See Sushi. See generally, Complaint, ECF No. 1.1 Mr. Yates filed a

19

motion to lift the stay in this case imposed by General Order 56 and to proceed with a Rule 26(f)

20

scheduling conference on July 1, 2011. Motion, ECF No. 21.

21

Mr. Yates’s motion for relief from General Order 56 is denied. General Order 56 automatically

22

stays suits for ADA violations and institutes an alternative process for resolving ADA cases

23

efficiently. This process begins with limited early discovery and joint site inspections followed by

24

settlement discussions and, if necessary, mediation. See generally General Order 56. The aim of

25

General Order 56 “is to require the parties to engage in a structured process designed to achieve

26
27
1

28

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronic page
number at the top of the document, not the pages at the bottom.
C 11-01273 LB
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ADMIN RELIEF

1

early compliance with the ADA while minimizing the adversarial litigation process and concomitant

2

fees.” See White v. Ming R. Shen, No. C 09-0989 BZ, 2011 WL 31187, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5,

3

2011). Here, maintaining General Order 56's requirements serves that goal. A September mediation

4

is within the time frame contemplated by General Order 56 and Mr. Yates has failed to demonstrate

5

why the court should relieve the parties from its requirements. Indeed, lifting the stay and

6

proceeding with discovery at this juncture could potentially lead to unnecessary fees and costs and

7

hinder the ultimate resolution of this case. Accordingly, the court DENIES Mr. Yates’s motion for

8

relief from General Order 56. If the amount of attorney’s fees is the sole impediment to settlement

9

and the parties are unable to agree on an appropriate figure at mediation, the court encourages Mr.
Yates to file a motion for attorney’s fees following a settlement of the substantive aspects of this

11

case.

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

This disposes of ECF No. 21.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: July 28, 2011
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C 11-01273 LB
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ADMIN RELIEF

2